Need faster zoom, VR or larger aperture?

Hiya, I'm about to pass my 28-100G down to my son and replace it with

a faster zoom in roughtly the same range (err, I've also got the 18-35

and 70-300, so the EXACT focal lengths isn't critical). I do quite a

bit of shooting in clubs and street shots at dusk. I'm just starting

to look at what might be a good replacement, and the following have

caught my eye:

 

28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and

35-70mm f/2.8D AF Zoom-Nikkor

 

Any opinions on these two lenses? Is the ED worth double the money?

Oh, the shop where I buy my gear thought I ought to also consider a

Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR...what'cha think of this lens?

 

Oh, I hang these off the front of an F80 and a D70.

 

My thoughts on the VR is that it would be FINE for things that aren't

moving (chairs, walls, parked cars, sleeping cats) but won't get me

much as far as moving things (performers, dancers, moving vehicles,

and the like) because it would still have a very low shutter speed,

whereas the other two would allow faster shutter speeds.

 

I've tended to stick with Nikkor, but would definitely look at other

brands if anyone has any recommendations...

Save yourself alot of cash; for what you want to shoot, pick up a beautiful and cheap 50mm f/1.4<p>

A full two stops brighter than the pro zooms will beat any VR (besides, what short focal length has VR? 70-200 would be the shortest I believe)<p>

If you need to zoom, use your legs... and each time you do, remind yourself that you saved two stops and about $1000...

You may wish to consider some fast primes as well. Since you have a wide zoom either one of the 28mm or 35mm would be good with your crop factor DSLR.

28-70 AF-S vs. 35-70 AF

Well the 28-70 AF-S is the lens to buy if you want tack sharp images. That's tack sharp throughout the focal range. Additionally, you will be very pleased with the speed of the Silent Wave motor. For action shots / candids AF-S really makes a difference.

The quality of the optics combined with the speed of the silent wave motor make it worth the money if the focal range suites you. However, it is not a replacement for your 28-100, it is in another class altogether.

 

24-120 AF-S VR

If you want a lens that you can put on your camera and leave on all day for all kinds of shots, wide angle landscape to telephoto portrait, the 24-120 might suite you. In addition the VR will aid in moving subjects as well as stills. Infact it is quite good for panning action shots. As you pan horizontally it smoothes out the vertical lens movement. I owned the old 24-120 non-AF-S/VR and it was my "all arounder". When I didn't want to hawl around a bag full of glass, this is the one I chose. Now I have the 24-120 AF-S VR and it is filling the same roll, only with the added benefit of more crisp handheld images and in focus shots with the silent wave motor. This would be the replacement for your 28-100.

 

I own some expensive Nikon glass...but the lens that spends the most time in front of me is the 24-120.

 

Hope this helps.

If you shoot inside clubs a lot and do not use a flash, VR cannot replace lens speed (i.e. wide aperture). A 50mm/f1.4 may be a good choice if you don't need the flexability of a zoom. Otherwise, the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is ideal on a film body, but it is big, heavy (for its focal length), and expensive. The 35-70mm/f2.8 is a cheaper alternative but its zoom range is more limiting and may force you to change lenses frequently in an indoor situation where you don't have room to move around.

 

The problem is that these lenses can all be too long on a D70, where the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is ideal instead of the 28-70mm. You problem is that the 17-55 DX should not be used on a film body (e.g. your F80) because it cannot cover the entire film frame.

Oh and Alton, don't worry about the prime lens fanatics. Yup a prime lens will be faster sharper and cheaper. Yes I use them, and they have a place in your bag...if you like collecting glass. But come on..."use your legs"...I love how some folks try and shame you because you are willing to pay for some convenience.

Who's shaming anyone? Alton's primary concern here was getting adequate shutter speed, either through the adjunct of VR, or through faster glass. In that context, two stops brighter addresses the issue alot better. Find me an f/1.4 zoom and I'll reconsider. Until then, keep the trolling for the Canon/Nikon debates.

Guys, photography involves compromises. Having a couple of extra stops is great for indoor, no flash situations. However, it is not always possible to move further back. You back can literally be against a wall, a table, or people. And if you move too far away from your subject, people can get in front of you and block your shot. And sometimes by the time you move, your shot is long gone. That is why using a zoom is often critical as well.

 

Unfortunately, there is no 17-55mm/f1.4 DX zoom yet, and if there were one, it would probably be too heavy and expensive anyway. It is up to the individual photographer to decide which way to compromise. Thanks to DSLRs, nowadays we can get away with ISO 800 or even 1600.

"Until then, keep the trolling for the Canon/Nikon debates"

Okay, I'll do that. And you keep on telling people to use their legs instead of buying a zoom. Grow up...little Nikos.

Hi Nikos and Christopher, enough said. Please take it easy. I'd appreciate your cooperation.

Ah yes: very mature Chris. I'm impressed.

- Don't spent time on thinking about NIKON AFD 24-120mm or VR ... it was and still it is average lense.<br>

Definitely NOT for recommendations... *Photodo.com grade it MTF 2.3 of 5.<br>

<br>

- Nikkor 28-105 AFD is much beter but not faster (3.5-4.5) <br>*Photodo.com grade it MTF 3.2 of 5.<br>

<br>

- But Nikkor and 35-70mm f/2.8D AF are SUPERB ZOOM lense <br> (almost like 80-200mm 2.8ED - MTF 4. /5) *Photodo.com grade it MTF 3.8 of 5.<br> And I can prove it that they are right!!!.<br>

<br>

- 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S are also SUPER, but almost 2x EXPENSIVE <br>

*Photodo.com grade it MTF 3.7 <br>

- 20-35 f/2.8 AFD is also GOOD with *Photodo.com grade it MTF 3.6

and that is it. <br> Anything else is BELOW my CRITERION.<br>

<br>

P.S. For example primes like Nikon AF 20mm f2.8 have MTF 3.5, <br> Nikon AFD 24mm f2.8 have MTF 3.7, Nikon AFD 35mm f2.0 have MTF 3.9 <br> and FINALLY Nikon AFD 50mm f1.4 have MTF 4.2 <br> In CONTRAST with The best NIKON AF 50mm f1.8 with MTF 4.4!!!. <br>

<br>

Nikon AFD 35-70 f2.8 is my recommendation.<br>

go visit: <br> :http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BKHG&unified_p=1

I highly recommend the Tokina AT-X lenses, and I agree with the previous poster to go with the fixed aperture, fast (2.8) pro glass - Nikon, if you can afford it, or third party (Tokina being my top choice).

I love the AF-S 28-70 for clubs and shows. The AF-S 17-55 is too wide unless you want the whole stage from a couple of feet away. Unfortunately, f/2.8 is too slow for many venues at ISO 1600. I usually carry a 105mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.8 for this.<div></div>

For these situations I carry a few fast primes because nobody makes a F1.4 zoom in any range. This way I dont have to worry about tables and guest in my way.

 

I carry a 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and a 85 1.4. I also carry a 50 1.2. I use them on either film or digital depending upon my realtive distance from the subject. I have one camer asetup just for primes and one camera set up with my 28-70 2.8 zoom.

 

If the crop factor of digital (d2h) bites me that I switch to a film body (f2,f3)

 

 

I also use the 200 f2 and 135 f2 - both great lenses too for low light work.

28-70/2.8 AFS vs. 35-70mm/2.8

 

I rented both at one time, a long time ago, and eventually bought the 35-70mm/2.8, which I still use on both a D70 and F5. Mind you, I only tested one sample of each, but I did not find any appreciable difference in sharpness, contrast or anything else.

 

If you can live with the limited zoom and do not need AFS (and sounds like you don't), then, between these two lenses, I'd opt for the 35-70mm.

 

Now if you have the money and can work with an angle of view of a 42mm on a D70, then there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, that even comes close to the Nikon 28mm/1.4 AFD for low light photography.

Nikos, he explicitly mentions zooms. Yet you immediately stamp in and tell him to get a 50mm prime.

I know from my own experience I rarely if ever shoot at 50mm so a 50mm prime for me would be useless. Maybe Alton has a similar usage pattern.

For me a 28mm, 35mm, and 70mm prime together would work to replace my 28-70 f/2.6 Tokina, but those 3 together would weigh more, be larger, and cost more than that Tokina for marginal gains.

 

Alton, for shorter lenses VR is useless. A fast 28-70mm can be used at 1/30 according to legend, but in my experience 1/20 or even 1/10 is quite possible.

With VR that might go down to 1/5, no further as camera shake would by then be starting to get too much for the VR to compensate for.

 

You'd better invest in a decent monopod to accomplish that fast lens.

A good alternative to the 28-70 Nikkor would be the equivalent Sigma EX. Fast, excellent optics, built like a tank, and quite a bit cheaper.

I much prefer zooms. When it gets dark, the faster primes can increase the percentage of usable images with the additional 1-2 stops that they provide. In situations like where the above image was taken, 20% usable images (not necessarily great art) is pretty good for me when using fast primes. My beloved 28-70 f/2.8 would put that percentage much closer to zero.

 

I (and probably most readers) can see that Alton asked about zooms. He also asked about shooting in clubs. To paraphrase an earlier post, if there's a zoom faster than f/2.8, please tell me about it. The bottom line is that many clubs are near impossible even with a f/1.4 prime. So what's wrong with suggesting a fast prime in situations where a f/2.8 zoom might result in a nearly 0% yield?

Are any third-party zooms regarded as highly as Nikon's f/2.8 AF-S zooms? Do any offer ultrasonic motors? I shoot a lot of low-light stuff, including classical music performances and church settings, where the lack of focusing noise and the speedy focusing of AF-S is crucial.

 

In other environments, I find the slower, noisier focusing of non-AF-S lenses to be an annoyance. I understand that this may be dependent on the camera body, and I have only a D100.

I prefer a "faster" lens over VR. The larger aperture allows greater

control of your background (in or out of focus). My vote (and a long

time user of) goes to the 28-70 AFS.

Holy Cow....I just got back from shooting in Thailand and WOW there is some incredible advice here. I also am a big fan of primes, but I often shoot in situations where stopping to change the lense will mean the shot is gone (I had some incredible shots of prostitutes on the streets of Thailand with their customers playing with a 2-year old elephant at 1 a.m. that I couldn't get because I had my 50mm f1.8 on and couldn't get far enough back with the D70 crop factor...and my film body was in the hotel). I'm tending toward the 35-70mm f/2.8D and using the money savings for one or two fast primes in the wide angle range.

 

In fact, street shooting in Thailand at night, I found the 18-35 to be the most useful as I could basically just shoot a bunch of frames from the hip unobtrusively and find the one that was framed the way I envisioned, so in fact a single fast prime wide angle is VERY VERY high on my list before I go back, though I managed to get some great shots with the f3.5 zoom by setting it to 1/30 and f3.5 and shooting a LOT. The ability to go to 1/125 would have made the yield incredibly high...

 

...thank you all SO much for the information, I'll be referring back to this as I will my 28-100G to my son for his first lense and replace it with something faster...